Between genders, it is the female population that needs to be more protected and secured from any form of danger and brutality. This is because by nature, people tend to keep women from harm thus they are provided with extra care and defense. In today’s modern society, women have already proven their worth and capabilities particularly in the military field. However, it is still essential and adhered to that those women in the military service are not placed at the battle fronts.
Such kind of position is not to demean female soldiers but basically as a matter of several principles. These include the fact that male soldiers have the foremost obligation to protect or defend the country. Secondly, female soldiers must be shielded from combat hostility and most notably, the contemporary setting measures military combat not on the number of soldiers but through modernization of the military system.
According to Schlafly, existing laws prevent the posting of female soldiers to military combat functions in any branch of the United States Armed Forces such as Navy, Air Force and Marines. While the author clarified that women can always exercise their freedom and volunteer to military service, they must be barred or not allowed in the military combat. Taking into consideration that military combat is considered as the most risky among military assignments, female soldiers must not be permitted to such deployment.
Since the life of soldiers during wartime can be cruel, hazardous and definitely lethal, the government particularly the military should not let female soldiers in combat (Schlafly 1). The position of not allowing women in military combat was supported by Fenner and De Young who analyzed the various manifestations of violations that beset female soldiers when they are assigned at the war fronts. Citing feminism standards, the authors explained that the military strategy or approach of fielding women in military combat is totally useless.
They stressed that the decision to push female soldiers into combat functions only to enhance the political framework of women is definitely “counterproductive and inconsistent with the principles of American democracy, as well as the goal of full participation by women in American society” (Fenner & De Young 108). They supported this position by saying that the realities of military combat signify harmful implications for female soldiers rather then increase the political structure of women in military (Fenner & De Young 108).
Additionally, Mitchell corroborated that the idea of military combat signifies only a good story material. However, the author disclosed that such enthusiasm for a quality narrative only conceals the harsh realities of women being given combat roles. Mitchell specifically emphasized that the concept of allowing women in combat leads to the inevitable condition that they flirt with disaster and violence. Under the disguise of gender equality in military, the position of combatant women hides the real stories of discrimination and sexual abuse (Mitchell 2).
In his book “Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster,” Mitchell made the public realize the events experienced by women soldiers who were made to do military combats. In doing so, the author emphasized that the principle and practice of allowing women in military combat have definite harmful implications. He said that women in the military service results to real but covered-up stories of sex-related humiliations. If not stopped, the author hinted that such undertaking makes today’s banner stories about sex controversies into combat zone chaos in future headlines (Mitchell 2).
Moreover, the advent of modern technology has allowed nations to develop state of the art war planes, guns, warfare equipment and facilities making it unnecessary even the drafting of women into military service. Therefore, there is no need at all to allow women in military combat. Even enlistment of women into the military service should already be discouraged or may only be allowed as a matter of choice for them and not as a lawful requirement or as compulsory or mandatory duty.
This position is being taken based on the fact that today’s warfare is no longer won by the number of soldiers alone but more on sophistication in terms of technology advancement. Gone are the days when wars were fought in terms of soldiery or number of fighters. Today’s wars are no longer fought and won on the fields or the war fronts. These are now decided in war rooms and through push buttons. In recent times, women were drafted as soldiers not for the main purpose of using them as combatants but more as headquarters support staff or as medical corps personnel. It is in this way that more men are made available for field or combat duty.
In fact, current measures restrict the service of female soldiers in specific combative roles and assignments. In particular, they are refrained from “infantry, armor and most artillery units” as well as not positioned to military units that are under primary mission to engage opponents into battle. While women soldiers’ abilities and expertise are considered, it is still important to acknowledge and realize the need to keep them from warfronts’ perils and compromise their roles only to restricted assignments but definitely not in military combat (Vaught & Donnelly 1).
On another note, modern countries such as the United States, France or Germany have made tremendous advances in modern military artillery that the need for the recruitment of more soldiers, even female service personnel, have dramatically declined over the last two decades or so. Most importantly, the emergence of the United States as the remaining military superpower, as a result of the disintegration of the former USSR, resulted into a reality that the security threat is no longer posed by invading forces but rather more from international terrorists, specifically the Muslim extremists.
Territorial expansionism is no longer a serious concern in the modern world. Nations are now rendered borderless with the advent of modern technology. And because of modern communications, conflicts and issues between contending nations are easily resolved without need of firing cannons or missiles at each other, much more fielding of more soldiers including women.
Additionally, if artilleries are fired, these are promptly stopped by persuasive influences of friendly nations as what recently happened in the former USSR and between Israel and the Palestine. This kind of argument clearly leads us to the position that women should not be allowed in military combat. It is rather a non-issue anymore because it is obvious that under the present world situation there is no need for military build-up or even involvement of female soldiers particularly in combat activities.
However, where gender discrimination is being discouraged; women maybe allowed in joining the military as office or headquarters staff or crew members of war ships but not as members of assault battalions. This needs to be done not to degrade women’s contributions and value in the military but under the perspective that they should still be defended and prevented from combat. In essence, women should be kept from harm’s way as much as possible because even during the era of barbarians they were never made as soldiers.
The decision to allow women in military combat is to an extent conditional. This may happen during extreme situation when male soldiers are wiped out in the battlefields and the hope of national survival are left in the hands of women soldiers. But they must be prevented from such because female soldiers should not be treated as attack forces but rather only to the extent of being homeland defenders. They may be allowed as combatants specifically for purposes of defense and not for offensive operations.